Is Rush more appealing and accessible than other classic prog rock bands?

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

Van Halen songs are mostly . . . hard rock tunes, while Rush are . . . hard rock.

Exactly.

And their lyrical themes are nothing alike. Just compare two songs from the same year (1978): The Trees and Running With the Devil. They have absolutely nothing in common.

Yes, when you intentionally select two songs out of several hundred that are very dissimilar, the result should not be surprising.  But how about Red Barchetta and Panama?

Or...let's play a game.  See if you can spot the Rush lyrics (no cheating!):

(a) "Yeah, oh yeah.  Ooh, said I, I'm coming back to look for you, ooh, said I'm, I'm going by the back door."
(b) "Well I been hustling here, I been hustling there, I been searching for about a week, and I started feeling this strange sensation, my knees are starting getting weak."
(c) "On every wall and place my fearsome name is heard."
(d) "Well, I see you standin' there with your finger in the air, everything we do you want to leave it up to you."
(e) "Everybody's looking for something, something to fill in the holes, we think a lot but don't talk much about it 'til things get out of control."
(f) "Better people, better food, and better beer!"
(g) "I've got a livin' that's rough, a future that's tough, you know what I mean, blankers and boasters, all the bluffers and posers, I'm not into that scene."

All that being said, it's certainly true that the two bands' most significant dissimilarity is lyrics, but you seem to be ignoring a great many similarities to emphasize the obvious differences.  Moreover, going back to your original point, why is it surprising that a lot of people like musical artists that aren't complete clones of each other?

Ha, this is easy for me, since Rush is my all time favorite band. On the other hand I personally don't care for most Van Halen with the exception of 5150, nor do I like David Lee Roth as a frontman or singer.

I also sort of see your point about Panama and Red Barchetta. Yes they are both about a car, however Rush's lyrics are much more evocative and poetic. They have more of a sense of nostalgia with a sense of longing for times long past. Panama has none of that, in my opinion. However, I am very biased, so take my opinion with a massive grain of salt.

[jammindude]

Dude...you literally took all your examples from their ONE ALBUM where they were literally a Led Zeppelin clone.

I have to admit I’m giggling because I’m having a tough time believing that people actually believe this. I did some quick math and came to the fair approximation that I have listened to over 85,000 hours of music in my life. Listening to it studiously. I hear almost zero resemblance between VH and Rush beyond the basics I already mentioned. They sound about as much alike as Motley Crue and Primus.

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

Dude...you literally took all your examples from their ONE ALBUM where they were literally a Led Zeppelin clone.

I have to admit I’m giggling because I’m having a tough time believing that people actually believe this. I did some quick math and came to the fair approximation that I have listened to over 85,000 hours of music in my life. Listening to it studiously. I hear almost zero resemblance between VH and Rush beyond the basics I already mentioned. They sound about as much alike as Motley Crue and Primus.

Agreed!

[Stadler]

Dude...you literally took all your examples from their ONE ALBUM where they were literally a Led Zeppelin clone.

I have to admit I’m giggling because I’m having a tough time believing that people actually believe this. I did some quick math and came to the fair approximation that I have listened to over 85,000 hours of music in my life. Listening to it studiously. I hear almost zero resemblance between VH and Rush beyond the basics I already mentioned. They sound about as much alike as Motley Crue and Primus.

With respect, the "studiously" seems to imply something more objective than just "I like it".   I'm calling you on that.   I am not saying that they are like Kiss and Aerosmith, but I think there are more similarities than we're admitting here, and I'm getting a whiff of condescension about that.    Van Halen is one of the greatest rock bands in history.   EVH is as innovative - if not more - than Neal was on drums.  These are Mt. Rushmore players.  I know the general consensus here is that Neal is one of the greatest lyricists in rock history, but the idea that Roth is simply "yeah, baby, baby, whooo, awww  YEAH!" isn't accurate.   There is almost always at least one or two songs on each VH album that dig deeper, and I've said many times that "A Different Kind Of Truth" is one of the best - one of my favorite - albums I own LYRICALLY. 

These are fundamentally rock trios rooted in the British blues of the late 60's, early 70's.  Look at the Feedback EP; THREE Yardbirds tunes (all from the Beck/Page era) and two Who tunes, including Summertime Blues.   In the Sammy-era, there were only three covers played:  A Apolitical Blues (Little Feat, off OU812), You Really Got Me (The Kinks, the live album) and Won't Get Fooled Again (The Who).  Summertime Blues was a frequent cover through the Roth era into the early days of the Hagar era.   EVH has widely stated that Clapton is his guy, with Page a close second.  (Interestingly, both Lifeson and VH have cited Steve Hackett as an influence; EVH for the tapping, and Lifeson for his acoustic work). 

I think the biggest problem here is perception:   I don't think I'm saying anything controversial when I say that around these parts, "Van Halen" is considered a bunch of jackasses and "Rush" is considered to be admirable, straight up gentlemen. 

[Samsara]

Responding to the original question in the subject line:

I think so, at least for me. I honestly have never really cared for (at least very much) a lot of the "classic" prog bands like Genesis, King Crimson, YES, etc. Rush alluded me for a long time, and it wasn't until Test for Echo that I finally gave them a chance and liked what I heard (still kicking myself for not going to the Jones Beach show on the TFE tour, a friend kept pushing me, and I just wasn't into them enough at that point).

There's an accessibility factor in Rush's tunes that just appealed to my ear and pulled me in. And then I started appreciating a lot of their less accessible tunes. Because of that, I have retried with some of the bands I mentioned above, and it just doesn't hit me like Rush did.

At the end of the day, for me, the answer is YES, Rush is more appealing and accessible than other classic prog rock bands. That said, however, I think if you throw away the genre labels, it comes down to something just very basic - I dig Rush, I don't dig the other bands. Nothing wrong with that.

[pg1067]

Dude...you literally took all your examples from their ONE ALBUM where they were literally a Led Zeppelin clone.

Actually not correct.  But where else am I going to get stuff that comes close to the lyrical genius of DLR and Sammy?


As far as the comparison, all I'm saying is that there's a heck of a lot more in common than there is different, and I'd invite you to draw an analogy to a certain Rush lyric that you're particularly fond of.

[kirksnosehair]

Rush wrote a lot of very accessible commercially successful songs.  I mean, there was a period in the 80's when they had 7 or 8 songs being played on a regular basis on most FM Rock Radio stations.  King Crimson, yeah, no so much 


Yes had some commercial success as did Genesis but that only happened when they toned down the prog and brought more pop sensibilities to their sound.

[WildRanger]

Rush has a big appeal on prog metal fans, that's for sure. They're very beloved and popular among DT fans. Minority of DT and prog metal fans dislike Rush. It seems that other classic prog bands don't have the same appeal on them.
Besides Rush, King Crimson is also cited as a significant influence on prog metal, but prog metal fans are definitely not into them as they're into Rush. Rush is nowhere near as eclectic, experimental and "complicated" as King Crimson, thus they're easily more accessible.

[Stadler]

Rush has a big appeal on prog metal fans, that's for sure. They're very beloved and popular among DT fans. Minority of DT and prog metal fans dislike Rush. It seems that other classic prog bands don't have the same appeal on them.
Besides Rush, King Crimson is also cited as a significant influence on prog metal, but prog metal fans are definitely not into them as they're into Rush. Rush is nowhere near as eclectic, experimental and "complicated" as King Crimson, thus they're easily more accessible.

I have no idea where you get some of the things you say.   

[kirksnosehair]

 'taint talk ?

[twosuitsluke]

These threads are gold 

WildRanger, only you could come in, commenting after nearly a year, and ask if it's weird that there is a crossover in Rush/VH fans        I literally can't think of a better comeback.

In regards to your last post, I'm obviously a big prog/prog metal fan and I don't care for Rush. I've tried enough albums and YYZ is the only song that has ever done anything for me.

Your sweeping statements about how fans of certain bands feel about other bands are just off, way off!

You do entertain me though. I feel I understand why you ask the questions you do though. You are very literal in your interpretation and seek for everything to be proven as fact. That speaks volumes to me.

[WildRanger]

In regards to your last post, I'm obviously a big prog/prog metal fan and I don't care for Rush. I've tried enough albums and YYZ is the only song that has ever done anything for me.

Your sweeping statements about how fans of certain bands feel about other bands are just off, way off!

I didn't say ALL prog metal fans are more into Rush than other classic prog bands, but MOST of them. MOST and ALL is not the same.
Your case is in the minority. 

[The Walrus]

In regards to your last post, I'm obviously a big prog/prog metal fan and I don't care for Rush. I've tried enough albums and YYZ is the only song that has ever done anything for me.

Your sweeping statements about how fans of certain bands feel about other bands are just off, way off!

I didn't say ALL prog metal fans are more into Rush than other classic prog bands, but MOST of them. MOST and ALL is not the same.
Your case is in the minority. 

Please show proof/cite your sources

[ytserush]

Ah shit here we go again

Goo Goo Goo Joob

[The Walrus]

Ah shit here we go again

Goo Goo Goo Joob

 

[WildRanger]

Watchmojo put Rush at #2 on their list of Top 10 prog rock bands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jWj7vhFMM

So it means they are the second band from the prog rock genre popularity-wise, after Floyd.
They're more popular than Yes, Genesis, Tull, ELP, let alone King Crimson.

[425]

I'd say it means that one of the most notorious purveyors of clickbait on YouTube tossed some bands on a numbered list. And precisely no more than that.

To take a still questionable but far more objective measure than "watchmojo made a list," Genesis has more monthly listeners on Spotify than Rush.

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

I'd say it means that one of the most notorious purveyors of clickbait on YouTube tossed some bands on a numbered list. And precisely no more than that.

To take a still questionable but far more objective measure than "watchmojo made a list," Genesis has more monthly listeners on Spotify than Rush.

On the flip side, according to LastFM, Rush has an average of 3500 songs listened to per day and Genesis has an average of 3300 songs listened to per day, over the last 6 months.

[WildRanger]

To take a still questionable but far more objective measure than "watchmojo made a list," Genesis has more monthly listeners on Spotify than Rush.

Most streamed Genesis songs on Spotify are their hits from the 80's, from their pop-oriented and commercial era, not prog stuff as Supper's Ready, Firth of Fifth, The Musical Box or Dancing with the Moonlit Knight. So during the 80's they were much more commercial-sounding band than Rush and they weren't prog at all, unlike Rush who were quite proggy during their synth-era.
My point is that Rush prog classic albums (esp. 2112 and Moving Pictures) are far more recognized and widely listened among rock fans in general than prog-era Genesis albums(Foxtrot, Selling England, Lamb etc), that are only popular among progheads.
 

[425]

That's an arguable point, but watchmojo links go 0% of the way toward arguing it.

[SoundscapeMN]

Watchmojo and their voters have as much credibility with Prog Rock as Eddie Trunk does with Technical Death Metal.

I used to watch their videos regularly, but jumped ship awhile back when it became clear their rankings and lists had less to do with the votes on their website polls, and more to do with who the producers wanted on the list.

Also they more or less stopped making Music based lists at least 3 years ago.

[Elite]

Watchmojo put Rush at #2 on their list of Top 10 prog rock bands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jWj7vhFMM

So it means they are the second band from the prog rock genre popularity-wise, after Floyd

No, it doesn't.




Also, hi! First post in a month

[pg1067]

Watchmojo put Rush at #2 on their list of Top 10 prog rock bands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jWj7vhFMM

So it means they are the second band from the prog rock genre popularity-wise, after Floyd.
They're more popular than Yes, Genesis, Tull, ELP, let alone King Crimson.

What??!  It means no such thing.  I didn't watch the video, but the caption on the video says, "Join [us] as we count down our picks for the top 10 Progressive Rock Bands."  This is just some random shlubs' opinion.

So during the 80's they were much more commercial-sounding band than Rush and they weren't prog at all, unlike Rush who were quite proggy during their synth-era.

Quite proggy?  LOL...no.

My point is that Rush prog classic albums (esp. 2112 and Moving Pictures) are far more recognized and widely listened among rock fans in general than prog-era Genesis albums(Foxtrot, Selling England, Lamb etc), that are only popular among progheads.

That may or may not be true, but you have no evidence to support your assertion.  And, if this was truly your point, why did you attempt to make it by citing and linking a video that is nothing more than the collective opinion of some rando website?

[Lupton]

Well that's really interesting. This last page of this thread made me realize something that I've never really thought about. Genesis at their most commercial were still "proggier" than Rush's synth era. I mean seriously. Does Rush have anything as proggy as Domino, The Brazilian, Do The Neurotic, Home / 2nd Home, Me and Sarah Jane, Dodo / Lurker or Fading Lights in their synth era? No, they don't. Maybe Marathon or Mission sort of bring the prog. Man, I do love Rush's synth era, but I've never really thought of it as being very "proggy".

[DTA]

Red Lenses sort of feels like The Brazilian. The Weapon, Digital Man, and Countdown are all pretty synth-proggy too. I think Genesis just had the benefit of a full time keyboardist and 3 music writers whereas Rush had 2 music writers and Geddy splitting time between bass/keys.

[HOF]

Red Lenses sort of feels like The Brazilian. The Weapon, Digital Man, and Countdown are all pretty synth-proggy too. I think Genesis just had the benefit of a full time keyboardist and 3 music writers whereas Rush had 2 music writers and Geddy splitting time between bass/keys.

Mystic Rhythms, Manhattan Project, and Marathon are all pretty proggy. But I do think Genesis was more overtly prog throughout the 80s and 90s than Rush were.

[Stadler]

Red Lenses sort of feels like The Brazilian. The Weapon, Digital Man, and Countdown are all pretty synth-proggy too. I think Genesis just had the benefit of a full time keyboardist and 3 music writers whereas Rush had 2 music writers and Geddy splitting time between bass/keys.

Look, I'm a big fan of both Rush and Genesis, throughout their career.   I LIKE the later Rush catalogue; I like Hold Your Fire, for example, as well as Presto.   I LIKE the later Genesis catalogue; Invisible Touch is one of my favorite Genesis albums, as is the self-titled.   

Having said that, PURELY PROG, there is very little in the post Moving Pictures catalogue that is PROG.   Rock, maybe even hard rock (which doesn't appear in the Genesis catalogue much if at all) but not prog.  Rush rode a surge of popularity at the end of their career, but not to the level of Genesis, who has maintained a foot in the prog world as well as a foot in the pop world.  They tour stadia without albums, and have for decades.

Rush may be more appealing and accessible than MOST other classic prog rock bands, but the number one in that category is Genesis.

[pg1067]

Anticipating WildRanger's next post:

[jammindude]

I disagree with the assertion that Genesis is “more proggy”. They may have more extended jams and some longer pieces, but that doesn’t make them proggy.

I think the technical complexity of Rush’s synth period far outshines anything from the commercial period of Genesis. And considering that that level of complexity was not commonly being done in synthesized music, it was also pushing the genre forward, and thus “progressive”.

Even a song like Turn the Page (which I don’t even really like that much) has a greater level of complexity to my ears than any of the mentioned Genesis pieces that I actually enjoy more. Home/2nd Home for example.

[Architeuthis]

Even a song like Turn the Page (which I don’t even really like that much) has a greater level of complexity to my ears than any of the mentioned Genesis pieces that I actually enjoy more.

I was gonna chime in on this, but I decided to disengage..

[HOF]

I disagree with the assertion that Genesis is “more proggy”. They may have more extended jams and some longer pieces, but that doesn’t make them proggy.

I think the technical complexity of Rush’s synth period far outshines anything from the commercial period of Genesis. And considering that that level of complexity was not commonly being done in synthesized music, it was also pushing the genre forward, and thus “progressive”.

Even a song like Turn the Page (which I don’t even really like that much) has a greater level of complexity to my ears than any of the mentioned Genesis pieces that I actually enjoy more. Home/2nd Home for example.

I think both of these (the technicality of 80s Rush and extend james/longer pieces of Genesis) qualify as proggy. I think I'd say some of those 80s/90s Genesis compositions were more in line with what Genesis did in the 70s than I would  for 80s/70s Rush. But whether you consider either prog or not, both have enough elements of what I enjoy about prog to make me think of them as prog. Power Windows is to me pretty unabashedly a prog album, but then again so are Invisible Touch and We Can't Dance.

[WildRanger]

Rush may be more appealing and accessible than MOST other classic prog rock bands, but the number one in that category is Genesis.

Maybe Genesis are number one when it comes to their 80's commercial POP stuff. But 80's Genesis and 70's Genesis were like two different bands in the same way Nicks/Buckingham-era and Green-era Fleetwood Mac were.

[King Postwhore]

Rush may be more appealing and accessible than MOST other classic prog rock bands, but the number one in that category is Genesis.

Maybe Genesis are number one when it comes to their 80's commercial POP stuff. But 80's Genesis and 70's Genesis were like two different bands in the same way Nicks/Buckingham-era and Green-era Fleetwood Mac were.

Same could be said about Rush.  Bands evolve with what's popular at the time.

[Stadler]

I disagree with the assertion that Genesis is “more proggy”. They may have more extended jams and some longer pieces, but that doesn’t make them proggy.

I think the technical complexity of Rush’s synth period far outshines anything from the commercial period of Genesis. And considering that that level of complexity was not commonly being done in synthesized music, it was also pushing the genre forward, and thus “progressive”.

Even a song like Turn the Page (which I don’t even really like that much) has a greater level of complexity to my ears than any of the mentioned Genesis pieces that I actually enjoy more. Home/2nd Home for example.

I respectfully disagree.  Tony Banks was writing complicated, intricate pieces WELL into the "pop" phase of the band.   Much like you say about Rush (and I don't really disagree), Banks had a way of making the complicated sound "easy".   "Me And Sarah Jane" for example.  "Anything She Does" is another; it's the only song from Invisible Touch never played live, because, as Banks has said on several occasions, it was too difficult.